War, what is it good for?

[Octavious]

1. WHO officials, the red cross, and other medical professionals not associated with Hamas are on record as saying there is no secret Hamas base under that hospital.

A few small points.

Firstly, these organisations have a large number of people working in the areas controlled by the terrorist organisation that has recently carried out hundreds of murderers and kidnappings. Does the thought not occur that they have a very clear interest in not saying things that might anger and provoke the deranged murderers who have power of life and death over their friends and colleagues?

Secondly, medical professionals are not especially qualified in military recon and hospital complexes are typically large and sprawling. You could put a rather large military outpost in one which many of the staff would be unaware of.

Thirdly (perhaps obvious but easily overlooked), military bases are by nature pretty mobile. That there was no base in a particular location one week doesn't mean it isn't there now.

[Jamiet99uk]

So in the past 24 hours the BBC has been allowed into the hospital by Israeli soldiers. The Israeli soldiers showed the BBC "some laptops" (but refused to let the BBC see what was on the laptops), a few pamphlets, and a small collection of elderly firearms. The Israeli's stated Hamas was not present in the hospital and had run away because the Israelis were coming.

Even if that is all true, isn't the fact that they have verified Hamas are not present a good reason to STOP DESTROYING THE HOSPITAL?

Just saying.

[Jamiet99uk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67436154

[CaptainFritz28]

So in the past 24 hours the BBC has been allowed into the hospital by Israeli soldiers. The Israeli soldiers showed the BBC "some laptops" (but refused to let the BBC see what was on the laptops), a few pamphlets, and a small collection of elderly firearms. The Israeli's stated Hamas was not present in the hospital and had run away because the Israelis were coming.

Even if that is all true, isn't the fact that they have verified Hamas are not present a good reason to STOP DESTROYING THE HOSPITAL?

Just saying.

Perhaps you are correct. Suppose Israel IS bent on the death or relocation of every Gazan, much like Hamas is bent on the death or relocation of every Israeli. Even if we take that assumption...

They still have international support to worry about. If they attack a hospital without cause, simply because they want people to die, the rest of the world is going to find out and there will be consequences. Even if the only thing holding them back from killing all Gazans is public reputation, that is still a major factor holding them back. They wouldn't do that, because they know that if they do, they don't get as much if any aid from the West. They at least have to have a reason for everything they do.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The reason isn't mysterious, the evidence Jamie put forward suggests that Hamas was using the hospital as a staging ground for active combatants, which accords with the account of the IDF and US military. Seems like there weren't tunnels under the hospital - I guess good on Hamas for not stooping so low in this particular instance. Maybe they never held hostages in the hospital (though there is evidence a different children's hospital in Gaza was used for this purpose). But Hamas doesn't get to hide within hospitals, even if they do so just a little bit...or, well, what looks like only a little bit after a couple days to clean up.

None of this is an excuse for what has been a very war-crime filled assault from Israel. I think reasonable people can disagree about whether Israel should have tolerated Hamas working out of a hospital if doing so would have saved civilian lives. But Hamas shares some responsibility for the deprivation of the innocent Palestinians in that hospital by making it a military target.

[Jamiet99uk]

^ props to you for taking a balanced view, Squire Bert.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I credit you Jamie, and this conversation, for helping to balance my perspective. I entered this conversation a little blinded by my disgust with Hamas and insufficiently critical of Israel's current government.

[Jamiet99uk]

Hamas are awful. But they don't represent the majority of Palestinian people. And those people are suffering. Thanks for seeing the whole picture.

[orathaic]

The majority of the Palestinian people hate Hamas and are unable to express that for fear of reprisals.

The Israeli government on the other hand... How many times have Hamas been described as "a creature of Israel" funded by right wing religious zealots to undermine the secular Fatah movement, and destroy the peace agreement/two state solution/return to 1967 borders?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The majority of the Palestinian people hate Hamas and are unable to express that for fear of reprisals.

The Israeli government on the other hand... How many times have Hamas been described as "a creature of Israel" funded by right wing religious zealots to undermine the secular Fatah movement, and destroy the peace agreement/two state solution/return to 1967 borders?

I'm not saying Israel had nothing to do with it, but right wing Israelis aren't all powerful. The narrative that everything evil done to Israel is its own fault is just way too simplistic. I'm unconvinced that, absent Israeli meddling, there would be a durable two-state solution and/or that there wouldn't be a violent extremist group with at least some political power in Gaza.

The rift between Fatah and Hamas was predicable and reflects real divisions between Palestinians who prioritize a two state solution, good governance, and negotiation with Israel vs. those who prioritize a Palestinian one state solution, Islamic rule, and indiscriminate violence against their supposed occupiers. None of this is meant as a slight against Palestinians - in fact, it's a political split that's mirrored in every one of Israel's Arab neighbours.

Despite some shenanigans around the 2006 election, it's undeniable that Hamas genuinely won the support of a huge share of Palestinians on a platform of violently ejecting Jews from Israel. It would be surprising if many Palestinians didn't hold these views given their scriptural basis in Islam, their popularity in nearby Arab nations + Iran, and Palestinians own history of being brutalized and humiliated by Israelis. Hamas' unpopularity in 2023 is hard to interpret in this context - have Hamas supporters changed their mind about the Hamas' major goals, or are they dissatisfied with how little progress Hamas has made? If Hamas were still violently opposed to Israel, but demonstrated at least a modicum of competent governance and a greater concern for Palestinian lives, I suspect they'd at least be quite popular.

And if right wing Israelis encouraged Hamas (I agree that some have truly tipped the scale in this direction), left wing Israelis encouraged Fatah. Moreover, Israel is not the only actor here. The US used USAID to try to support Fatah, openly breaking their own commitment not to interfere in the election. Iran backs Hamas in a big way and it's not obvious that they would have tolerated a totally non-violent government in Gaza for long.

[orathaic]

The majority of the Palestinian people hate Hamas and are unable to express that for fear of reprisals.

The Israeli government on the other hand... How many times have Hamas been described as "a creature of Israel" funded by right wing religious zealots to undermine the secular Fatah movement, and destroy the peace agreement/two state solution/return to 1967 borders?

<snip>

Despite some shenanigans around the 2006 election, it's undeniable that Hamas genuinely won the support of a huge share of Palestinians on a platform of violently ejecting Jews from Israel. It would be surprising if many Palestinians didn't hold these views given their scriptural basis in Islam, their popularity in nearby Arab nations + Iran, and Palestinians own history of being brutalized and humiliated by Israelis. Hamas' unpopularity in 2023 is hard to interpret in this context - have Hamas supporters changed their mind about the Hamas' major goals, or are they dissatisfied with how little progress Hamas has made? If Hamas were still violently opposed to Israel, but demonstrated at least a modicum of competent governance and a greater concern for Palestinian lives, I suspect they'd at least be quite popular.

And if right wing Israelis encouraged Hamas (I agree that some have truly tipped the scale in this direction), left wing Israelis encouraged Fatah. Moreover, Israel is not the only actor here. The US used USAID to try to support Fatah, openly breaking their own commitment not to interfere in the election. Iran backs Hamas in a big way and it's not obvious that they would have tolerated a totally non-violent government in Gaza for long.

I agree that Hamas did gain support in 2006, but apart from portraying themselves as far more moderate at the time, you have to consider the historical context.

Fatah had given basically everything it had been asked for, recognising Israel, promises of peaceful approach etc. But the Israeli government which had taken over was not interested in a two state solution. This made Fatah look like it was headed in the wrong direction, like everything it had given up was for nothing

So it is not surprising to me that Hamas gained support. Since winning that support they have refused to hold further elections, and have been fairly brutal to the people of Gaza.

Not everything is Israel's fault. But nothing happens in a vaccum either. Continued settlements in the West bank a d evictions of Palestinians in Jeresulam are just the latest committment to undermine a two state solution and Israel was on the verge of massive IDF strikes and civil disorder over the issue, but October 7th united the country like no politician could. This shouldn't have surprised anyone. Does Hamas believe only violence will bring Israel back to peace talks? If so there will be a lot more violence before this ends... It took 20 years of occupation before the US gave up in Afghanistan, I suspect this is the begining of a very sad chapter in Israeli history which will be filled with attrocities, justified in the eyes of the terrorist as self-defence.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I totally agree with the above.

There are several ways to frame the "side A offered side B everything they wanted and they still said no" story depending on what historical events you want to focus-in on and what demands you view as reasonable. I agree that Israel's government is largely responsible failure of the peace process in recent history. I think only a Jewish supremacist could support continued illegal settlements. But I don't think that's the full story - Palestinian intransigence has certainly played a role too (e.g., it's hard to view Palestinians' hard line position during the Clinton peace talks charitably). Then the logic of the situation becomes awkward - did peace talk 2 fail because, in peace talk 1, side A was unwilling to accept reasonable demands? You could fill in "1" and "2" with various events in Israel-Palestinian history and side "A" could be either side depending what event we're talking about.

And if Palestinians lost faith in the peace process once Fatah's offer was rejected, Israel has no doubt learned some lessons of their own this year. I think a two-state solution is the only moral option, but I also think it's impossible: there's too much mutual hatred on both sides, too much religious fundamentalism on both sides, and Iran wouldn't let it happen. Oct. 7 makes a two state solution even more impossible. Hamas violence can only "win" if it catalyzes a war of annihilation against Israel from Hezbollah and Iran. Terror attacks on Israeli citizens are not even conceivably a tool for peace. Now that Iran has left Hamas out to dry, it looks like Israeli violence will be what ends this current conflict, and it's brutal and horrific.

[CaptainFritz28]

I find that the whole ordeal is a matter of (and this is greatly oversimplifying it, there is obviously more nuance), in general,
1) western overreach, including the British in the years following WW2, the USA in multiple instances, and overall meddling in Israeli affairs,
2) eastern overreach, including the Arab nations surrounding Israel in their wars against her, the Iranians in their support of terrorist organizations like Hamas, and Russian meddling in Israeli affairs,
3) poor Israeli handling of things, including their victories in the wars begun against them, their dealing with peace talks, their eviction of Palestinians, their dealing with terrorist bases under hospitals and neighborhoods, and to a certain extent their hand in the growth of Hamas (although I think the last is slightly overblown),
4) terrorists being terrorists, including the decades of attacks on Israel, as well as the October 7 attack, the willingness to put their military bases under hospitals and neighborhoods, and an utter disregard for lives of any nationality, and
5) the fact that the rest of the world wants a two state solution, when each of the two states wants the complete removal of the other.

I think everyone takes a share of the blame here. Thus, we must look forward. What can Israel, Hamas, the East, and the West do right now to make things better?
The West can stop funding Israel when Israel commits war crimes, especially since Israel has more than enough to defeat Hamas as it is.
The East can stop funding Hamas, because they are terrorists.
Hamas can stop being terrorists, as that harms not only Israelis but also Palestinians.
Israel can be more careful with who they attack and how they go about this invasion, and then at the end of it negotiate a better settlement that does justice to both their own loss and the Palestinians' loss.

However, the trouble is that Hamas will not stop being terrorists, and the East will not stop funding terrorism. Thus, we can only advocate for what has the chance of changing.
To have the West stop sending aid to Israel, other than humanitarian aid (which is necessary for both Israel and Palestine) would be a good option, until Israel proves that they are willing to not commit war crimes.

This leads to the disagreement, and really the only major disagreement, that I have had with orathaic and Jamie:
From what I have heard, y'all believe that Israel should cease their attack on Hamas and "stop occupying" Palestine. Also from what I've heard, y'all believe that all of Israel was once Palestine and thus all of Israel is an unjust occupation of Palestine (correct me if I'm wrong on this point especially). The conclusion would be that Israel should cease hostilities with Hamas and disband the Israeli government in favor of a Palestinian one.
Even if we lower the second premise to the idea that only most of Israel is an unjust occupation of Palestine, including the West Bank, Gaza, and some other territory, that would still lead to the conclusion that Israel should ceasefire against Hamas and should entirely remove themselves from any land that the rest of the world determines is Palestinian.

The trouble with these conclusions is that both of them require Hamas to continue to exist, which means that Hamas will continue to attack Israel, which means that more terrorism will be done. They have made clear their intent to entirely evict Israel from their current territory, and drive all Jews off of that land, and they will continue to strive to do just that. A ceasefire just allows them to regroup and return in force, killing more than they could have killed otherwise, while their leaders sit in penthouse suites in Qatar.

So, my conclusion is this: Israel should not cease fire. Israel should ensure that Hamas never returns again, HOWEVER, they should also do so more carefully. They must not think of this as revenge but as the liberation of the people of Gaza, and thus they should be trying to spare as many Gazan lives as possible. When it is over, they should come to the negotiating table and, with Hamas out of the way, determine a solution. Those are my thoughts; if you disagree with me it will be in this last paragraph. If you don't disagree with my conclusion, the rest is all nitpicking at things that we don't really disagree on but just define differently or the like.

[orathaic]

Oh frak, I know this isn't recent, or related to Hamas, but I just learned:

https://x.com/rafaelshimunov/status/1725515037966516355

[orathaic]

Though apparently the BBC is taking the kid gloves off:

https://x.com/Tracking_Power/status/1725521502244634880

[CaptainFritz28]

Though apparently the BBC is taking the kid gloves off:

https://x.com/Tracking_Power/status/1725521502244634880

Oh frak, I know this isn't recent, or related to Hamas, but I just learned:

https://x.com/rafaelshimunov/status/1725515037966516355

Seems like either both were deleted or removed in some capacity. What was the story?

[Octavious]

The links work fine for me.

Oh frak, I know this isn't recent, or related to Hamas, but I just learned:

https://x.com/rafaelshimunov/status/1725515037966516355

This one is a post on Twitter by some bloke I've never heard of talking about the terror attacks against Iraqi Jews in the early 50s and claiming that it was carried out by other Jews acting on behalf of Israel. This appears to be a long established theory with some evidence behind it, rather than just some antisemitic conspiracy shite, but it is a long way from being an agreed history of events. Israel has always denied any involvement, and to be fair to them they have admitted some pretty grim stuff over the years so their denials carry some weight.

But quite what this has to do with anything I have no idea

[Octavious]

Though apparently the BBC is taking the kid gloves off:

https://x.com/Tracking_Power/status/1725521502244634880

This one is a BBC news report on the evidence that the hospital was being used as a Hamas base that basically says there's not yet enough evidence for the argument to be convincing, and that the IDF videos aren't great. This has been interpreted by the pro-Hamas chap who posted the video as the BBC saying Israel is lying to you and manipulating you and tampering with evidence.

[Octavious]

Oh, a thing called the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) apparently surveyed 668 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip regarding the current crisis to get a measure of public feeling. It is pretty grim reading. Does anyone know if there's any truth to it? I've no idea whether it's a reliable source or not

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Oh, a thing called the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) apparently surveyed 668 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip regarding the current crisis to get a measure of public feeling. It is pretty grim reading. Does anyone know if there's any truth to it? I've no idea whether it's a reliable source or not

Let's just be clear what the finding was:

"An opinion poll conducted by Birzeit University's Arab World for Research & Development (AWRAD) revealed that a majority of surveyed Palestinians in the West Bank support the October 7 massacre carried out by Hamas, and an even wider majority have a positive view of the various terrorist factions.

After over 1,200 people were brutally murdered and over 240 taken hostage, including children and elderly, many civilians tortured and raped, the survey showed that 68 percent in the West Bank strongly supported the massacres and kidnapping, while another 16 percent supported to some extent."